Nikon D810: A sport photographer's impressions

Nikon D810: A sport photographer's impressions

UK-based sports photographer Guy Swarbrick recently got the opportunity to shoot the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, Scotland. Just before the games he took a delivery of Nikon's latest full-frame DSLR the D810, and in this article he shares his experiences of using the camera.

I’m unusual – but by no means unique – among sports photographers in shooting Raw plus (small, basic) JPEG. My workflow at events involves using the JPEGs to deliver timely content for online customers, then switching to the Raw files for print work. When the D800 came out I was tempted by the idea of using it as a high-resolution second body alongside my D4, to supplement my old D300. In the end though, I decided that the workflow for 36MP files was likely to be simply too slow and the amount of landscape work I did simply wouldn’t justify the expense.

By the time the D810 was announced, the D4S was my main camera, my D300 was broken and I was again considering a higher-resolution backup body. The two things that clinched the deal in favor of the D810 were the addition of the excellent Group Area AF mode from the D4S and my accreditation to the Commonwealth Games, with the prospect of some great backdrops at the mountain bike and road events.

The D810 arrived just over a week before the start of the Games, while I was covering some elite road races in Yorkshire. This gave me an opportunity to get used to the D810 and another recent addition to my camera bag, the 80-400 VRII. Quickly I was impressed by the flexibility that the D810 gave me, and at just how well it performed as an out-and-out sports camera.

Comments

I have almost the same kind of experience. My D300 was since 2008 my main camera with very satisfying result in architecture and sports photography. I own a D800 since 2012 particularly for architecture, portrait and landscape photography. Dough I was surprised how good and easy the D800 works as sports camera and certainly combining it with the Nikon 70-200mm sports lens. I still use my D300 along the race circuits as fast and reliable camera and benefiting of the crop factor. See my website www.henrivangelderfotografie.nl for the examples. With the new D500 I consider to buy this camera as a extra sports camera.

Good article and insight. We primarily shoot cycling, triathlon, and running events. Because of the amount of shooters we use and supplying their equipment, we use D200's and D300's exclusively. Group Dynamic focusing with lock-on tracks just fine with high speed cyclists. All my guys/gals use manual mode with auto-iso on using spot metering and have no issues. Sure, the D200's iso of 1600 can get a bit noisy, but ok for column prints. High iso is still unusable (Hi1, Hi2). Since we shoot in Fine mode and at 10mp, filesize and workflow isn't a problem either. Don't think were going to upgrade equipment anytime soon either. Just goes to show that a intimate knowledge of our tools can and will get the job done.

Well nothing with a mirror that goes up and down between exposures actually does this very well, however much you pay.There are very serious inherent problems and stated frames per second are not in fact as claimed. One has to assume, wrongly I feel, that during the time of mirror- blackout between shots that the lens is refocussing, but this must be the case when adding mirror blackout times to exposure times. Given the lag inherent whilst the mirror goes up and then down the fastest rates can therefore only be achieved at very high shutter speeds, but in a best case, in theory the Canon SHOULD be twice as fast as the D810 Nikon. Whether either or both focus track what you want infocus is another thing! Prefocussed the lag on a D810 is still less than the 7DII, but not by much, but with a cheeter charging at me, I'd be way too scared !! Which is the best for self defence?

Having just spent a weekend trying to do the same thing with (one of) the mirroless cameras that claims to have the fastest AF in the world, I can assure you that a mirror going up and down between exposures still wins - by a HUGE margin.

Im afraid I'm going to have to disagree too! Taken away from a studio into the real world,even the best Mirrorless today,couldn't even touch an Older body like the 7D with a 70-200 2.8L II.Take both combinations into a dimly lit arena and the SLR would floor the Mirrorless.Simply Put,That "Flapping Mirror" and Prism allow for Totally separate sensors for auto focus and metering,and allowing it all to instantaneously work separately but together,instantly.This is why less than perfect lighting conditions also cause Mirrorless cameras big issues.I personally think SLRs are far from a dying breed.Having said that,what Sony and Fuji have done,is to be respected-and they make magnificent cameras,for certain applications they make an ideal choice.But not sports,not by a long shot-and we haven't even touched Durability etc.Then we come on to the buffer,something which in my opinion crippled the D800E for any action sequences,glad to see Nikon have improved it in the D810.

Would anyone recommend the d810 over the 7d2 for high action photography? The former would have better iq for sure but it's the accuracy and tracking abilities that I am interested in. Is the d810 capable of nailing 100% of the shots in, say, a cheetah racing towards the camera at 70mph even at 6fps or 7fsp? Will the 7d2 also nail them at 100%? If both do 100%, then there is a difference of 3fsp; the d810 with better iq and the 7d2 with three extra frames to choose from (which can be crucial is selecting the ultimate frame). That said, if both are equally capable in acquiring 100% frame rate, the d810 allows for crazy enlargements; not that the 7d2 is not capable unless one is pixel peeping. Can the d810 match the 7d2 in accuracy and tracking abilities, putting aside that extra three frames?

Shooting bicycles, field Hockey and Track and Field is easy compared to Basketball where there is constant change of direction and people moving in and out of the scene. I've shot Baseball, Soccer, Lacrosse, bicycles, Hockey and Basketball. I find Basketball the hardest by far.

Bicycle are not easy, it needs a fast focus cause it keeps moving at you, and the moment you snap it, the rider is already out of focus cause he is going at full speed.It all depends of lens, condition and type of pics you want to take, in all fields

The reason I said easy is because the movement is predictable. As long as the camera focuses fast enough (continuously) it's easy. Of course that eliminates most mirrorless cameras but with most DSLR type cameras it's easy and takes little skill. It takes a better focusing camera and lens yet for basketball for the reasons I already mentioned.

You've not shot a lot of cycling, have you? There are all sorts of reasons why it's difficult for an AF system to cope well with it, but the most significant is the depth of the target. Unlike a field sports player, a cyclist has a bicycle which sticks out a couple of feet ahead of them, the furthest forward part of which they hold on to. In very, very good light it's all within the depth of field, so if the AF grabs at an arm or a handlebar stem it doesn't matter too much. Indoors it matters enormously.

I think Volleyball is much more difficult to shoot than Basketball.At least in Basketball you know where the ball is ultimately going!I can sit under the net and wait for the action to come to me! Not so with volleyball; the action is very fast and not very predictable.

Image 5 is a panning shot. The point of the article, though, wasn't to provide a sports tutorial and motion blurred panning shots - while they require a lot of practice to do well - aren't a particularly good test of a camera. In fact, if I found myself at an event with a camera with low IQ and/or poor ISO performance a slow shutter speed, motion blur panning shot would probably the best option given the limitations of the equipment. They have their place, but, personally, I don't think they would have added anything to what was essentially a camera test.

I think Guy Swarbrick deserves a round of applause from everyone for the generosity with which he gave his time and bestowed his expertise in answering so many of our posts. His professionalism at all levels is plain to see.

compared to what? " I think you force use D810 in indoor sports photography."The IQ in d810 is better at 25600iso than canon 6D at 25600isoand 6D is better than 5dmk3, not bad for a camera with highest resolution, best DR at base iso and now also good as or even better than 5dmk3 , 6D at 25600iso, just finished a test between my 6D and d810http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54214812

Ps how often do you use 25600iso when you are shooting indoors sport?.

While your perception of IQ (each persons that is) can certainly be a relevant assessment of performance, you could not be honest if you did not acknowledge there is also a percentage of that perception (a significant % for some people) that is nothing more than what you 'want' to see as opposed to what you can 'actually' see.

To quote a debated source (though universally referenced when it agrees with someone's point) 'a measurement difference of approximately one point is imperceptible.' Therefore the 'less than' one point higher measurements (DR only) of the D8xx do not actually yield a better looking image, and that ~.5ev gain at base ISO doesn't make up for the lower measurements in SNR, TR, CS at base ISO and beyond. Its pixel count does certainly yield a 'bigger' image, but not a 'better' image - unless of course bigger is needed over better.

Many cameras out there provide higher IQ than the D8xx series beyond ~.5ev of DR at base ISO, and all measurements of IQ at higher ISO.

Not to play the proverbial Devils Advocate.. but you are 'quoting' data that is nothing more than a theoretical mathematical hypothesis of (high ISO) performance when applied to (base ISO) measurements - not - a physical measurement taken at those (high ISO) settings.

If you look at the physical sensor measurements taken across the ISO ranges (not the hypothetical theoretical mathematically downsampled scores) the 5D3, along with many other cameras, has higher IQ measurements (including DR) above 'base ISO' than the D8xx. (in the case of the A7S, those 'higher ISO' measurements start as low as ~ISO140)

RealityCheck: Do you refer to overall scores or the measurements? Sure, a higher MPix camera has lower S/N and DR per pixel. But we know, too, that downsizing increases both. 5DM3 measurements are even lower at pixel levels below ISO800. Above a certain ISO a camera designed for low light shooting like the A7s will be better, but up to ISO12800 downsized to 12MP a 5DM3 or D810 or A7r can easily compete (dppreview itself showed a comparison recently). So you need to make a choice which camera suits your needs best. For me a D810 is perfect, for other an A7s might do it.

The actual measurements (taken at the sensor level) which physically dictate/limit any resulting output, not merely contribute to it.

At the sensor is the only point at which DxO actually measures the image data - everything else DxO publishes, including their scores/rankings, are theoretical and based on perceptually flawed mathematics. For example, if color depth is increased in printing/downsizing ('normalizing' as DxO commonly references) that is something being done by the print engine or software, not what the sensor is doing. While that could certainly be relevant for some, especially if using hardware/software capable of producing those same enhancements, not everyone uses the same hardware/software. It is simply an inaccurate method of evaluation in the context of what DxO provides - in-depth, technology evaluation, applicable to all - and certainly not the empirical results they tout.

They are simply trying to sell software, their software, and so few seem to realize that.

How did photographers manage to get such great indoor sports shots 8 years ago with equipment much inferior to the D810? Just because a camera isn't the absolute best at something doesn't mean it cannot achieve excellent results. I think some people tend to get overly anal in their quest for IQ perfection without realizing something a little less still is great.

I'm thinking of getting a used D300 or D300S. I just want a decent Nikon. And I can only spend so much. But if I did get a D300 and then by chance got a chance somehow to use this camera, how sorry would I be?

It depends what you're going to use them for. I loved my D200, before I got my D3, and got some great images with it. When I replaced it with a D300S I was somewhat disappointed - not because it wasn't better than the D200 - it clearly was - but at just how far off the D3's performance it was, particularly indoors.

If it's going to be for general purpose use it'll be fine - they're both good cameras. If you're going to be doing any indoor sport, I'd look at a used D3 or D700 rather than a D300/s.

I am upgrading from a D3, lightly used, to the D4S. If you are interested in the D3, let me know. I'll make you a great deal. Sports photography is my passionate hobby. My career is in Finance. I don't need a financial return from photography, so I can let it go cheap. I get all my gear from B&H. Jason Vance.

No, none of them are - they're all RAW files output from Lightroom. That's what I typically send my clients, so I have no interest in how good or otherwise the OOC JPGs might be (other than how close they are to what I might send my client for immediate use at the venue, obviously, but that's typically 800 pixel wide web images anyway... they barely need to be in focus.).

I know it's an oft-requested thing in reviews, but in practice, even on the rare occasions I send a client a file straight out of the camera, it won't be with the default JPG settings. Contrast, sharpening and D-Lighting will almost certainly have been changed from the defaults.

And I wasn't resetting all of that for a major championships to provide default JPGs for an article (that I didn't know I was writing when I started!). :)

I still have all the OOC JPGs, if anyone is interested - with those caveats...

Note also the discussion elsewhere on spot metering. It's the best way to get accurate exposures on the riders if you can nail the head, but with some kits - all black and all white, in particular, a couple of cm out and you'll be under or over by a stop or more, which obviously has to be corrected in post and is much easier to do with the RAW file.

Often what you'll find is a sequence of four or five frames with a rider moving towards you with one or two slightly off on the exposure and the rest spot on...

I have to agree with Guy here. I have never sent a client (commercial & documentary work) a OOC jpeg yet. I do not really know why the professional level cameras even have the option to shoot them to be honest. I'd love a Nikon camera with RAW only, no video, an F3 HP style high eye point finder and inbuilt GPS.On the rare occasion I have shot both, the OOC is never as good as what I can achieve in LR or similar and I am no great expert in LR.

There are other things you can do to maximize the already wonderful IQ. If you have a D800 and want to get rid of the low-pass filtering as best you can, Photoshop and Capture NX2 have in their sharpening software a section called "gaussian blur" (Elements has Gaussian Blur, then Lens Blur and then Botion Blur).

Best to do your noise reduction BEFORE sharpening, then simply zero the gaussian blur (which is 0% and 100 I think in Elements) and you will notice that your image does in fact then resolve more without sharpening, giving you a "Poor Man's" D810 effect on a D800, though not as good as the D810's hardware absence of low-pass filter.

This only works if your noise floor is reduced below the visible threshold, as otherwise you of course then get higher resolution noise as well!

With the resolution at APS-C crop almost the same as the D4s, I never understood why people were still prepared to use them rather than the D800, so it is what I decided to get. The D810 reputedly has a stop noise advantage over the "old" machine. If this is the case, there is now even less need for D4s and their Canon equivalents, as at the same magnification you will not notice a lot of difference and with the group AF reintroduced, I can only envy those who waited!! The Group AF and the extra stop are the clinchers for me, as resolution vanishes when noise gets to equal fine detail in size- why I returned my D300 in disgust.

But how are the orange-reds?? and the shocking pinks? I am still not happy with the colour in these areas at all. Identical subjects with a NEX7 are so much more colour accurate.

I didn't particularly like the JPG rendition of the red in the England cycling jerseys in the velodrome, but I initially put that down to the lighting and, when the Lightroom upgrade came in towards the end of the week the RAW files seemed OK. The England hockey shorts and the Virgin Media logos behind them look about right.

Using RAW in Lightroom the files are inaccurately rendered compared to Capture NX2 which does do a better job, but after two years with a D800 I have had to give up on colour accuracy here in Cardiff- and you can imagine what that does to festival carnival and- in your area- the rugby shirts and associated gear- its as bad as using a 1Ds MkII again. I chose a NEX7 over the new one as I checked out files online whose tests again showed that as with the D800 , the A6000 reds go too orange. You notice this much less in jpeg files rendered as sRGB but if you use Adobe RGB like me, your troubles are eternal. I am sure there is a firmware fix possible- as the NEX7 sensor is about the same date as the D800's but you will find that you had better set the camera to neutral and minus 2 saturation in picture controls.IF, that is the D810 colour is the same as the D800.

Comments on DP Review crack me up sometimes. When someone posts a stunning image, about half the comments are about the camera. When someone posts an image to illustrate a camera feature, we write in with questions about the subject.

When someone posts a photo that simply could not be taken (at all) with traditional cameras, someone will write in to claim it could have been taken with their camera phone.

Indoor sports pics are about the most demanding thing you can do with a camera, unless you are using it to hammer in your tent stakes. The need to focus fast in low light reduces most cameras to tears. Freezing the action (or shooting handheld) with a boatload of pixels leaves the tears blurry and black-and-white..

Delta 3200 (35mm) film used to have a nice gritty look to it. You could push it to 6400, and it wasn't great, but still had more texture and "feel" than almost any digital. Not so any more. The high ISO files you published had a lot more to work with than even high-ISO film.

Now I want an 810. It is out of my price range for an "armature" photographer, but nice to know it can jump through hoops when needed. Thanks for the article.

I am also testing the D810 and it is a fabulous camera and performed well during BMX races and a cycle road race. The 5fps drive speed is better than 4fps, but still a tad slow.

In my view, it's the kind of camera I would want as an extra body (to the D4s) when shooting aspects at an event that do not require high speed drive. But I still wonder why 36 megapixels would be required for most sports event photography. (Why buy a 36MP camera to shoot 9MP RAW files?) Of course, it's not billed as a sports photography camera and would be ideal for wedding photography, for example. (I know several wedding pros who use the D800.)

That's kind of where I stood with the D810 before the test. There are some subjects that lend themselves to big files - I expect to use it in the Brecons ffor the Junior Tour of Wales in a couple of weeks to do some 'race through landscape' images that I wouldn't previously have bothered with - but I think for me it's the ability to shoot wide and have the option to crop tight and the ability to shoot in DX and get the 'crop factor' but still at D4-type resolution.

And if it genuinely ends up being a backup for the D4s, you can always squeeze and extra fps or two out with crop modes and the grip...

Are you the Guy Swarbrick that used to edit PCW? (And very well, may I say). Interesting that you've gone down the photography route, as has another PCW ex-editor Gordon Laing who runs his CamerLabs website from Queenstown, NZ.

HarryLally I think there were so many Editors of PCW that two of us would eventually share the same job again! And yes it was Guy who hired me back in 1992, giving me my first job in journalism, which eventually lead onto my current career reviewing cameras (now back in the UK after a while in NZ).

I'm also really enjoying Guy's work on Facebook, especially when he ditches his big DSLRs for more svelte mirrorless models and finds they can sometimes deliver fantastic results in a pro sporting environment... Great article here too Guy, and well done on dealing with the comments!

Thanks for the review Guy. I shoot a bunch of different sports for 2 local newspapers mostly with a D4. Like you I shoot in raw and basic JPG and find the new 80-400 an outstanding versatile daylight sports lens. But I'm tired of the D4 drawing attention to me, no way I'm getting the just as loud D4S, and I'm thinking on sacrificing the extra FPS for a D810. What else do you think one would lose going from a D4 to a D810 for varied sports use? I already have a D800.

Why buy a D4s? Because it focuses faster, tracks better and shoots faster than the D810 and has file sizes more appropriate for a deadline-driven, high-picture-count workflow and because the ergonomics of an integrated sports camera are better than a landscape camera with a grip - off the top of my head.

My assumption in writing the article was that people know what makes a good sports/PJ camera and would be interested in whether a super-high-res landscape/studio camera was capable of adding an extra dimension while performing adequately on them.

If you want one camera exclusively for sports, i wouldn't buy a D810. If you want a second/third body - or want a general purpose/landscape/portrait camera that you think you might, occasionally want to use for sport, it works in a way that the D3x and even D800/D800E didn't.

Why does it matter? Well, lots of semi-pro sports photographers - and if you shoot niche sports its hard to be anything else - need one of their cameras to be capable to do somethinge else - like weddings or commercial work - where a grip-less body is more appropriate, but still want a proper metal-frame and pro-build quality. With Nikon having apparently discontinued the prosumer DX line, the D810 is the only obvious candidate.

It was for me, but as I commented elsewhere, I'm not really a machine-gun phtographer and I typically use flash, which limits the frame rate anyway. But certainly the hockey and athletics shots were bursts and I never through I'd missed the key moment between frames.

That depends on the sport and the situation. There's a very popular sports shot of the starter's pistol going off. There's no way of predicting when the trigger will be pulled and there's no way of reacting to the bang and getting the shot, so if you start ahead of the trigger pull, the frame rate is a pretty good indicator of how likely you are to capture the flash...

No question about it. Workflow issues aside, there are some shots the D4s takes in its stride that the D810 would struggle with - the final 60m of a 200m Time Trial, for example, where the rider appears from behind the central barrier, head on at 70kph at a distance of about 10m. The D4 would usually get 2-3 usable images from a sequence of 6; the D4s 5+. I haven't tried with a Coolpix S1 or a Pentax K3, to be fair, but I think the D800 would be closer to the D4.

I got some odd looks when I shot the Berlin 6 Days with a Fuji X-Pro1. Mostly from stewards - the other photographers just thought it was cool and wanted to know how well it worked (not very - but it was an interesting experiment!).

Guy,Excellent review. As a cyclist, I loved the bicycle racing photographs.Your points comparing a D4S to the D810 for sports/PJ applications are bang on, IMHO. I observed the same thing when shooting pro motorsports with a Canon 1Dx vs a 5D MkIII....you can make the 5D work in that situation, but the hit rate and overall performance, particularly the responsiveness of the 1Dx, has it all over the 5D at the end of the day.

There's no doubt the D810 is a good camera but I agree withTom G. You could get the same results with a point & shoot. Dpreview is obviously lacking for a real test of an over $3k camera but then again the target audience is guys that own pro gear and shoot birds on a bird feeder or endless test shots.

Photos like that may look deceptively simple, but that's because they were taken by someone who really knows what he's doing.I also fail to see your point of mentioning the K-3. Just because other cameras could be used to take the same shots, he shouldn't have used the D810? Nobody claimed that a D810 is necessary for this type of photography.

OH MY I made a spelling mistakeeee it should have been amateur so sorry to offend you perfectionists.the man whom never made a mistake never made anythingas I say one could have done these photos with a Pentax K3no need to spend £3000 G, on a upgraded Nikon Tom

You have missed the entire point the this article. This article was just about how well the D810, a camera that due to it's high megapixel count would traditionally be considered unsuitable for sports, could handle such a situation. It was not promoting the D810 as the best or only choice for making these types of photos.

@Josh152I don't think Tom missed the point at all…In every review, or in any user report, you can expect the Pentax boys to show up with their mantra (Hey look at us, we can do that too!).If only Pentax/Ricoh had the Passion that the Pentax forum has, they would give Nikon and Canon a run for their money.

You mentioned that you set ISO to auto, meaning that you use Nikon's autoexposure. You also mentioned use of the highlight weighted metering mode in one instance. Do you use that mode exclusively on the D810? If not, why not?

Thanks. I did use Auto ISO throughout but not highlight weighted metering. It does a very good job for the scenarios it was designed for - avoiding blown highlights on spotlit faces in podium ceremonies, for example - but it does too good a job in following its own algorithm - particularly outdoors. So you'll absolutely avoid blowing highlights in the sky by turning the foreground into a silhouette, for example. Even indoors at the velodrome, if there was a light in the shot, it would meter for that and reduce everything else to near darkness.

Yeah and I'm not sure Nikon has done a good job in really explaining the purpose and drawbacks of Highlight Weighted metering OR that it's Spot metering. Spot metering without some expertise can create terrible exposures with any camera but Highlight Weighted Spot has even more risks as you point out, Guy.

Nor were they particularly supposed to. Although the highest resolution Nikon DX camera is 24MP, so the cropping ability would be somewhat reduced and the noise levels on some of the images - 5 are at 7200 or above - would be difficult to match. All those are wide open, so the only scope for reducing the ISO is via the shutter speed and there's some scope there - especially on number 8 - which was a DX-busting ISO14k4, but with VR and/or a monopod could have been shot at a lot less than the 1/640 I used handheld.

The question was whether a high pixel count FX camera could be used as a secondary sports body which, to my mind, it can.

I don't understand these comments. Of course you can do sports with a good DX body. Nowhere in the article the opposite was claimed. But you will have limitations, too, as soon as ISO gets too high, as soon as you want stronger subject separation, etc. I find it quite impressive to do so with a 36MP FX camera, showing it's versatility ranging from landscape, studio work up to shooting sports, if required.

I didn't look up the EXIF for any of those (couldn't find it actually). But if some of them are shot at ISO's reasonably too high for DX then I stand corrected about the shots not demonstrating the capability of FX.

Thanks for sharing. I found most of the shots did not show how good the AF system of the D810. Only if the lens were wide opened to reduce to DOF yet still achieved sharp image on the subject, then I am convinced

Not all shots were designed to show how good the AF is - and 'good' means more than one thing, of course. All the indoor shots and the flash shot of the pursuit rider are in pretty low light, so that's one aspect. The flash shot and the head on shot of the sprinter feature riders at 40-50km/h and were tracked head on and laterally respectively, so that's another aspect. And the panning shot shows the AF's ability to retain lock when obstacles get in the way. That's probably the highest speed shot of the set, incidentally - Bolt's no slouch - but he's roughly half the speed of the cyclists. Oh, and the pole vaulter was a tiny subject with a very crowded background.

Apart from three shots - the mountain biker with Glasgow in the background, the stumbling runner and the rainy road race - all the shots were taken wide open.

I couldn't really get the 'impressions' part from this article. It is more like a tutorial of a sport shooting than a personal feedback.I couldn't see any comparison or criticize. Mostly it goes like I did this, I did that. Actually I already know 36MP gives better results when you crop compare to lower pixels.

I would be happy to see, how it performs compare to D4?

(shots are excellent and definitely good work by the way; no offense to your job)

I guess the revelation for me was not that more pixels give you more options - as you say, that's pretty obvious - but that the camera that provides them isn't fatally compromised - for this sort of work - in other areas in order to achieve the detail.

It could easily have been - slower AF, lower frame-rate, smaller buffer - but in practice they're all good enough - if not, obviously, best-in-class.

The large file sizes could have been a deal breaker, too. It does have a negative impact on workflow and without the ability to save RAW to one card and JPG to another, for example, it would simply not have worked for me.

Beatiful details, really fantastic camera and optics , very able photographer. But in the images i would prefer a little more movement-effect , using perhaps a bit longer exposure times . But i think that these photos want to show the very high resolution and perfect detalis-capturing of the new Nikon .

I have some longer exposure shots (many of them!) but, as you say, they don't really illustrate the points in question.

When shooting an individual or team pursuit, where you get 12 or 16 shots per rider, I'll tend to shoot a sequence of high shutter speed 'bankers' - full profile, wide and a couple of close ups - and then start winding down the shutter speed for the rest of the race.

To be honest, though, I'm not a fan of natural light motion blur shots. I think they tend to look 'muddy'. It's one of the main reasons I typically use flash - which wasn't an option here.

Good photographer piece, especially the shot settings and requirements in a very prolific area of photography.

It would be great to see more articles from the photographers perspective (no offense to the editors of course, heh) on equipment and settings in these types of venues. Though I guess that would eventually result in an article or two where someone wasn't all that impressed by a Sonikon D8xx for sports - and we couldn't have that sort of thing on DPR.. =P

Kudos to Nikon in marketing though, they have generated quite a buzz over the 'new' Group Area AF mode. Whether through marketing material or user comments, statements like 'the addition of the excellent Group Area AF mode {from the D4S}' does sound much better and newer than 'the addition of the excellent Group Area AF mode in the D810 and D4S {from the D200}'. lol

I loved my D200 and perhaps should have given the Group Dynamic Area mode a historic reference - although, in my experience, it wasn't quite as effective as Group AF is on the newer cameras and I tended to shoot in Single Point AF. But I agree that Nikon deserves recognition for resurrecting a good idea now that the technology has caught up enough to make it work.

It worked quite well considering the limitations of the 11-point AF.. You did not have anywhere near the placement options of course (5 total) which made it more like sliding Dynamic Area a little to the left or right..It did allow you to narrow the array at the extremes (left and right) over Dynamic Area, useful for smaller subjects in the outer thirds.It was actually better implemented on the Fuji S5 for some reason... O.o

...and no offense intended, wasn't picking at you, I just think it is kind of humorous that Nikon is basically handcuffed to exclude its mention. As it wouldn't sound very new, nor high-tech, to say that in their new $6k+ body they incorporated an AF mode from a 2005 model.. =)

No offense taken. It's a difficult message for Nikon - 'Group AF is similar to Group Dynamic AF on the D200 that you probably never owned (and probably didn't use the mode even if you did) but works somehwhat differently - we got it right this time'... I think I'd probably pretend it was new, too. :)

As you mentioned using the D200 I assume you might have made your way through the D300/s, D700, D3/s over the years.. I toggle between Dynamic and Single on my D700 all the time, between shots sometimes, and if rumors pan out Nikon is supposed to be releasing a new FX 'Action' body this year. I doubt even in a new action oriented body they would revert back to putting the focus modes on the back of the body though.. In your experience with the current gen bodies (if you regularly use different modes) how would you rate the experience of having to button+dial modes in the field, on the run..?

Had most of those... :) Didn't have a D300 or a D3s, but had a D300s and a D3 and a D700 (and a D70 before those).

I tend not to change very much in the field. I don't shoot rocks much (with these cameras...), so I rarely use AF-S and the full dynamic/3D modes still don't work in any useful way for what I do, so if I was going to change it would be between Group AF and Single point. In practice, I haven't found anything that GAF doesn't work reliably for, so I haven't changed much.

I agree that it's a bit convoluted, but you can't have instant access to everything and, for me, it wouldn't be a priority to change it.

heh.. I was speaking of Dynamic-area AF and Single-area AF (the modes that current gen bodies require pressing the little button inside the switch on the flange and then spinning the dial to cycle through (not AF-S and AF-C) versus one quick click on my D700 - but as you mentioned not changing modes very often your experience is probably not impacted much then..

..and what do you mean we can't have instant access to everything, heh, its only because if we ever did we might not want to upgrade.

Very good and interesting article. Thanks a lot. For really fast action (dog agility competitions), I have had more luck using a single focus point in AF-C mode than the Group area AF, but maybe that is a matter of pratice.

I used Single Point AF almost exclusively prior to the D4s (and still use it on my D4). I've never shot dog agility but I can see that the smaller target and frequent change of directions might be more of a challenge for the algorithms behind Group AF than the faster but more predictable athletes.

Good article! nice to hear pros talking about all their issues and specs. I would like to hear more about the rainy day bicycle race that was the last photo. What kind of "rain gear" did you use? The hood that comes with that lens looks huge and great for keeping drops off. No way he just had the naked camera and lens?I am also curious about the D810's ability to keep focusing with CH maximum speed. Do all or most shots stay in focus? My D800 has the bad habit of say, 2 out of 6 being OOF because of mirror slap. I have heard the new version has fixed this.

The hood is indeed good and - as mentioned in an earlier comment here - I did take some precautions with the lens in the rain. I normally use cheap but effective Op/Tech 'plastic bag' rain covers but, for some inexplicable reason (fooled by the weather forecast...) I'd left them at home in England. I bought another rain cover the day before the road race (after using the 80-400 completely unprotected - without problems - in the shower-affected time trial). I didn't get on with the design of it and abandoned it before the end of the race, but it was covering the lens (but not the body) during the worst of the rain, I also carry a microfibre towel with me at all times (it used to be a chamois leather...) and did dry the lens off when the rain eased off and before fully retracting it.

Guy,Thank you for a fascinating report on the Nikon D810 and the comparisons to the D4S. Based in San Diego, I've been shooting motorsports for my weekly newspaper and online automotive column. My primary body/lens combo has been a D3S with Nikon's old 80-400mm. I prefer the smaller but sufficient file size of the D3S to the D810. The images meet my needs and the D3S is rugged and very weather resistant. At races I also carry a D3 with a wider zoom (Nikon 28-300mm) .I'd like to replace my D3 with a body that has better low light sensitivity. That new body would become my primary camera. From your report it sounds like that should be a "sports body" with a much lower pixel count than the D810, correct?When do you think a D5 is likely? Instead, should I try to find a used D4S? I hate that Nikon replaced the two CF card capability (in D3S) with one CF card and a proprietary Sony card (in D4/D4S).My new Tamron 150-600mm will replace Nikon's 80-400 at the IndyCar season finale.Jan W.

As I've said elsewhere, I wouldn't choose the D810 as my main body if my focus was on sport. The point of the article is that if you have one primarily for other forms of photography and wnat to know if the D810 is up to the job for occasional sports use - or you want a second/third body that gives you more options (with some limitations) - it's a great choice.

I think anyone that tries to predict Niikon's model releases is insane - except that the new sports bodies tend to appear at the Olympics and are announced/available a few months later. I would expect the D5 to be spotted in Rio in two years time and be availble in the autumn - sorry, fall - of 2016.

I never had a D3s, so I can't comment on the relative merits vs a D4/D4S. The D4S is a huge step on from your D3, though.

In practice, I have two 32Gb and one spare 16Gb XQD cards to cover both my D4(s) bodies and they're great - if fragile.

By the way, I'd be interested to know how you get on with the 150-600. It's a range that could be useful for some of the road racing stuff I do, but my fear is that it takes the few compromises the 8-400 has and amplifies them all.

I did consider the Sigma 120-300 when I bought the 80-400, but I use the 'wide' end too much for that or the Tamron, I suspect.

Great article, Guy, and tutorial. Just wondered how less capable it would have been to take those very same shots with the D800. I guess the extra fps helped a lot, but could you have achieved the same with the 800. I can remember a couple of years back when all the pundits said the 800 was in no way a sports camera and it should be kept in the studio on a tripod. If you do sports get the Canon.... Just goes to show what a good photographer can do with almost any equipment. I remember arriving at a motor race about 20 years ago with a Mamiya Twin lens reflex. And my shot ended up as an ad in Newsweek... :-)

I never had a D800, so I can't really answer that. It was the addition of Group AF that mainly tipped it for me. I don't really machine-gun shots - and, outside the Games environment I would normally shoot with flash, which negates most of the speed advantage anyway.

I got serious about sport just as the UCI mandated that all major track competitions be run on indoor 250m tracks and, at the time, there wasn't a Canon that had the low light capability to do anything much beyond motion-blur panning shots, so that wasn't an option, either. :)

I own the D800 and have been testing the D810. For action, the D810 is a bit better: 1 fps faster (or 2fps faster in 1.2x crop mode.) And -- in the right situation -- the Group-Area AF mode provides greater reliability (see info below) in maintaining focus on the primary subject.

Otherwise the D800 is about the same ... although that evaluation would require extensive side-by-side testing. (RobGalbraith.com used to do that type of testing.)

Nikon quote: When Group-area AF is selected, the camera uses one focus point selected by the user and one each above, below, to the right, and to the left of the selected focus point, for a total of five focus points, for focusing. By capturing the subject within the five-point group, even if it is small and moving quickly and erratically as is often the case when photographing athletes and animals, the intended scene can be captured with greater certainty without focus shifting to the background.

Just a minor comment i hope the odd cropping of the podium head shots were for the article otherwise why cut off the medals??? Interesting discussion around difficulties getting the shots in the velodrome but the shot would have been better with the pedal in the push position even if in motion. Not great photos but certainly show the camera's capabilities.

The photos were chosen speficially to illustrate specific points about the camera's capabilities - so I'm glad they achieved that. The podium shot was one of a series - some wider - and was chosen to show the maxiumum amount of detail on the riders faces without looking too artificial. You're right, of course, if it had been a client shot, the medals would have been included.

The panned Kilo shots have a number of challenges in addition to the ones mentioned in the article. It's a four lap time trial and the first lap is out of the saddle - so you have three laps to get the shot.

If the pan works three times and you're not trying for different options (I was shooting that shot and a far trickier head/shoulders/bars shot for each client's riders) there's a good chance the pedals would never be in the ideal position aesthetically. Sending the client another rider because you prefer the position isn't really an option... And you can't ask them to do it again.

Thanks so much for great words and images. A question: You mention (image 1) possible slowness when working with the files from the 36mm sensor...did that happen? If so, how much computer power do you have that isn't enough? I ask to insure my planned laptop purchase is adequate. I'm having difficulty learning how much processor & RAM I need to accomplish uninterrupted workflow for these 40+ MGB files.TIA

Mmmm. I have an i7 with 16Gb of RAM and an SSD and it's not quick in any real sense of the word. And just the act of copying a session's RAW files to the PC using fast cards and USB 3 is time consuming. But as a second body and for a relatively small proportion of the shots, it is acceptable. And PCs are still getting faster...

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.